The
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks
relief pursuant to Title 42, United States Code, Section
1983. This matter is before the Court upon Defendants'
Motion for Summary Judgment. (Dkt. No. 36). For the reasons
set forth herein, the undersigned recommends granting
Defendants' motion.

Pursuant
to the provisions of Title 28, United States Code, Section
636(b)(1) and Local Rule 73.02(B)(2)(e), D.S.C., all pretrial
matters in cases involving pro se litigants are
referred to a United States Magistrate for consideration.

Plaintiff
filed the instant Complaint on or about April 29, 2016.
(See generally Dkt. No. 1.) On March 17, 2017,
Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. (Dkt. No.
36.) By order filed March 17, 2017, pursuant to Roseboro
v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), the Plaintiff
was advised of the summary judgment procedure and the
possible consequences if he failed to adequately respond to
the motion. (Dkt. No. 37.) On or about May 16, 2017,
Plaintiff filed a Motion to Amend, as well as a Response in
Opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment. (Dkt. No. 48;
Dkt. No. 49.) On May 22, 2017, the undersigned issued the
following text order:

TEXT ORDER granting 48 Motion to Amend/Correct Caption. In
his Motion to Amend, Plaintiff states that he seeks an
“order amending the caption to state that the
Defendants are sued in their individual capacity.”
(Dkt. No. 48 at 1 of 4.) Plaintiff's Motion to
Amend/Correct Caption (Dkt. No. 48) is GRANTED. The Clerk
shall change the caption to read as follows: Tarcia L. James,
in her individual capacity as Nurse at McCormick Correctional
Institution; Kellie L. Brewer, in her individual capacity as
Nurse at McCormick Correctional Institution; and Asia Few, in
her individual capacity as Correctional Officer at McCormick
Correctional Institution. AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

Plaintiff,
who is currently incarcerated at McCormick Correctional
Institution (“MCI”) of the South Carolina
Department of Corrections (“SCDC”), brings the
instant action against two nurses and one correctional
officer at MCI. (See generally Dkt. No.
1.)[1]
Plaintiff alleges that on March 21, 2013, he “started
shaking, ” so he asked Officer Few if he could go to
the infirmary. (Dkt. No. 1 at 5 of 19.) According to
Plaintiff, Officer Few told Plaintiff to “go
ahead” to the infirmary as “she cleared it
already.” (Id.) He alleges, however, that once
he got to the infirmary, Defendant Nurse James “with an
inflamed voice and erratic disposition expelled [him] from
the medical infirmary, ” even though Plaintiff told
Nurse James that he had “the shakes.” (Dkt. No. 1
at 12 of 19.)

Plaintiff
alleges Defendant Nurse Brewer received a phone call from
Officer Few that “Plaintiff had the shakes and was
coming to the medical infirmary for treatment.” (Dkt.
No. 1 at 6 of 19.) Plaintiff alleges as follows (verbatim):

Nurse Kellie L. Brewer violated the Constitution when acted .
. . with deliberate indifference to Plaintiff's serious
medical need, Nurse Brewer actually admitted she received a
phone call from Ofc. Asia Few about Plaintiff serious medical
need, and she said, that she may have said send him up but
she was doing the pill line, which is not an excuse to do
nothing when an emergency care phone call comes to her and
she knows Plaintiff was coming for emergency treatment and
she did not treat his serious medical need herself, or make a
report that Plaintiff was coming to medical infirmary for
emergency treatment causing to Plaintiff to passing-out and
waking-up from the floor in pain and bleeding from his left
arm and his shoulder had a discomfort.

(Dkt. No. 1 at 8 of 19.)

Plaintiff
alleges that Defendant James “violated the Constitution
when she acted with deliberate[] indifference to
Plaintiff's serious medical need” because when
Plaintiff came to the infirmary, “she did not act
reasonably[ but] expelled Plaintiff with an inflame[d] voice
and erratic disposition stating no one called her or told her
Plaintiff was coming.” (Dkt. No. 1 at 9-10 of 19.)
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant James “did not consult
the officer on duty in the medical infirmary about Plaintiff
coming to [the] medical infirmary, she did not lodge in the
computer her assessment of Plaintiff nor did she even examine
Plaintiff.” (Dkt. No. 1 at 10 of 19.) According to
Plaintiff, Defendant James “did . . . nothing even
though Plaintiff told her that he had the shakes.”
(Dkt. No. 1 at 10 of 19.)

Plaintiff
contends Officer Few “acted with deliberate
indifference to Plaintiff's serious medical need”
when she “saw Plaintiff's shaking and determined it
was a serious medical need” and “sent Plaintiff
to medical” but “failed to follow-up on Plaintiff
and assure that Plaintiff was received and treated for his
serious medical need.” (Dkt. No. 1 at 6-7 of 19.)
Plaintiff also contends Officer Few violated Plaintiff's
constitutional rights “by not providing an incident
report to Plaintiff and not providing an incident report to
the medical infirmary.” (Dkt. No. 1 at 7 of 19.)

Plaintiff
asserts that Defendants' actions “caus[ed] . . .
Plaintiff [to] pass[]-out and wak[e]-up from the floor in
pain and bleeding from his left arm and his shoulder had a
discomfort.” (Dkt. No. 1 at 6 of 19.) In the
“Relief” section of his Complaint, Plaintiff
states that he seeks a declaration that the Defendants'
“acts and omissions . . . violated Plaintiff's
rights under the Constitution.” (Dkt. No. 1 at 12 of
19.) He also seeks compensatory and punitive damages. (Dkt.
No. 1 at 12 of 19.)

STANDARD
OF REVIEW

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Pursuant
to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, summary
judgment &ldquo;shall&rdquo; be granted &ldquo;if the movant
shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material
fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter
of law.&rdquo; Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). &ldquo;Facts are
&lsquo;material&#39; when they might affect the outcome of
the case, and a &lsquo;genuine issue&#39; exists when the
evidence would allow a reasonable jury to return a verdict
for the nonmoving party.&rdquo; The News & Observer
Publ&#39;g Co. v. Raleigh-Durham Airport Auth., 597 F.3d
570, 576 (4th Cir. 2010) (citing Anderson v. Liberty
Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986)). In ruling on a
motion for summary judgment, “‘the nonmoving
party's evidence is to be believed, and all justifiable
...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.